5 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Except if someone is concussed by a knee to the back of the head in a marking contest?

Or having their splean ripped in half.

The universe has gone completely insane

14 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

I did some research and assumed Adrian Anderson was successful in JVR’s appeal against the Suns in 2023.

Nope. He was unsuccessful at the original tribunal case. Another lawyer got him off at the appeals hearing.

The bloke’s a complete failure. And we’re a complete failure for continuing to appoint him.

After what he did to this club he should be barred from having anything to do with us! Why the hell do we engage him on our behalf, surely there are other options. Or was this one of the punishments from his tanking investigation?

8 minutes ago, pitmaster said:

Jeff Gleeson, who cleared Maynard for his Brayshaw hit, finds differently for May. Go figure.

Mystifying

i told youse may was cooked if we went with anderson

anderson is the personification of groundhog day

he must have some interesting photos in his bottom drawer

This week's banner

"MRO - 132 games for Collingwood

Tribunal chair - 30 year pies member

Unbiased"

Can't fine you for stating facts

Steven May has been given a three-match ban by the Tribunal after a 3+ hour case.

They said that he had sufficient time to slow himself in the contest and didn’t do so

Comments:

Now it’s pull out of the contest and let the opposition get an easy goal

No sane person that has ever played the game could come to that conclusion.

Game is forever broken now. How in the world could he slow down when it was the last bounce up that did him? Which was less than 0.5 of a second to stop

That is the worst decision, will change the game and no longer will players be able to make tackles at all. Games dead and dusted

"sufficient time" is the dumbest s**t they could say tbh

May has been absolutely thrown to the wolves here. What Pearce done was 10x worse. Left the ground, put his arm out.

The AFL is a corrupt pack of dogs - they pick and choose who they suspend.

So they wanted him to squib it. They agreed it wasn't a bump so he's been reported and outed for 3 weeks for not being a squib. The most amateurish professional sporting organisation in the sporting world.

How the hell did he “have sufficient time” - & I’m not even a demons supporter.

Appeal it Melbourne and set the standard. Completely fine to knee someone in the back after a mark (intentionally) and push a player into the bench while outside the field of play.

That’s wrong and he must go to the appeals board. Blatant and egregious error.

can’t accept this one, he’s gone the ball, got their first and get 3 weeks because of the accidental contact. Play a contact sport but rub anyone out based on outcome, soft.

It’s a 0.0005 second to make the decision!!! he thinks he will get there first but the ball pops up and he gets there 0.0005 second too late

15 minutes ago, Redleg said:

I think the players Association needs to come out and say our players now can’t play the game, as any collision and injury is a suspension, unless you are a Collingwood player of course.

And then they'll lose any chance of a future class action against the AFL. Guaranteed the AFLPA will tow the party line on anything relating to concussion.

Just now, daisycutter said:

i told youse may was cooked if we went with anderson

anderson is the personification of groundhog day

he must have some interesting photos in his bottom drawer

Yep.

We get a massively in form Adrian Anderson, fresh off another tribunal defeat with Zac Bailey, as recently as last week.

1 minute ago, brendan said:

That’s me done won’t be renewing my membership after this year the AFL is so clearly corrupt it’s just sad now, you just know a Collingwood player will do the same thing next week and won’t be cited, unfortunately the love I have for the MFC just no longer trumps the hatred I have for the game

You’re not alone in this one. No point paying for a product that’s not fit for purpose.

Still love the MFC but the game in itself has probably lost me now.

I hate winter but footy would get me through. Looking forward to watching as many games as possible, now it’s really only 1 game. And don’t get me started on the umpiring. That’s actually comical.

Time to find another sport.

not one agrees with this but this isn’t a good look….

14 minutes ago, Redleg said:

I think the players Association needs to come out and say our players now can’t play the game, as any collision and injury is a suspension, unless you are a Collingwood player of course.

The players association.... please Red.. thats as much a "club" as the rest of the AFL.

They run with hares and hunt with the hounds. I mean ffs... look who's who there !! President in Moore no less ... f m d

Maybe next time instead of contesting the ball he just dives into a player on the ground & knees them in his back

Just now, dees189227 said:

Maybe next time instead of contesting the ball he just dives into a player on the ground & knees them in his back

We all know may would get a week or two if he did that.

So the AFL’s direction is to take short steps at a contest. Good to know

Is there an avenue to appeal?

15 minutes ago, SadDee said:

Every player not going to know if they can touch each other soon, no tackling, marking contests.

May as well make the ball out of foam in case it hits someone on accident and they get concussed

1 minute ago, daisycutter said:

i told youse may was cooked if we went with anderson

anderson is the personification of groundhog day

he must have some interesting photos in his bottom drawer

Don't blame Anderson. Shouldn't need some fancy lawyer to make a complicated leagal argument. The AFL should be capable of making a reasonable, sensible and unbiased judgement. It's the AFL that are the most at fault party here.

They are also at fault for picking and choosing when players do and don't have a duty of care:

Racing to contest a loose ball with both players front onto the contest and able to make decisions to attack or protect themselves - duty of care on the player that comes out uninjured.

Standing in front of a high ball and having a player jump into the back of your head. Of course TDK had no other option and no duty of care. Steve May should have disappeared.

Tribunal chair Jeffrey Gleeson - 35 years a Collingwood member

AFL IS A JOKE

MRO IS A JOKE

TRIBUNAL IS A JOKE

If he was a Collingwood player the result would of been exactly the same. The tribunal looks at evidence. The club the player plays for is irrelevant.

Xerri: 3 weeks. May: 3 weeks. What???? You have to be kidding me!

Adrian's nine reasons™

1 - May contesting the ball

2 - Legitimately expected to get to the ball first. Has his hands out, expecting he can get to the ball first

3 - Both travelling at pace, reasonable for both to do so

4 - Unexpected bounce of the ball on its fourth bounce

5 - By the time he realises Evans is there, it’s too late to slow or change momentum significantly

6 - Doesn’t move off line

7 - Doesn’t tuck elbow in or rotate, doesn’t jump off ground.

8 - Attempts to slow at the end, even though it’s too late.

9 - May significantly taller than Evans

6 minutes ago, jaydenh10 said:

not one agrees with this but this isn’t a good look….

Personally, I love that from Riv, this is beyond a joke and I'm glad our boys have the guts to speak up/stick up for mayzy.

The people with the most power to challenge the corruption are current players.

9 minutes ago, biggestred said:

This week's banner

"MRO - 132 games for Collingwood

Tribunal chair - 30 year pies member

Unbiased"

Can't fine you for stating facts

DO IT

P.S. it's also an oxymoron to think that the AFL cares about facts or even knows what they are.

Edited 14 hours ago14 hr by Rodney (Balls) Grinter

It’s becoming difficult to watch this once great game go down the toilet.

The umpiring this season has been nothing short of disgraceful, the MRO have their pets and untouchables and sadly our team is not one of them.

We get screwed over by the tribunal time and time again.

I really feel for May - I’m not sure exactly what he was supposed to do but obviously it’s ok to rupture someone’s spleen and commit thuggery and ruin someone’s career. I’m beyond angry and frustrated. 🤬

Check out this horse**** reasoning

Reasons:

The football was handballed over the head of Francis Evans and towards the Carlton goal.

Evans turned and accelerated quickly to retrieve the ball. When he did so, he was several meters in the clear. Steven May had been running back towards the goal, and appears from the vision to have been approximately 20 meters away from Evans when he first saw that the handball had gone over the head of Evans.

May changed direction and ran at speed towards the ball. We find that at the moment that May changed direction and ran towards the ball, a reasonable player would have realised that it was highly likely that Evans would reach the ball before May did.

There was, of course, the possibility that, if everything went right, from May's perspective, he may reach the ball at about the same time as Evans, but only if the ball only bounced low and fast on every bounce away from Evans and towards May.

We find that when May changed direction, a reasonable player would have realised that there was little, if any, chance that May would reach the ball first.

The most he could have hoped was that he would arrive at about the same time as Evans, and as we have said, it was far more likely that he would reach the ball after Evans.

May then accelerated towards the ball. He appears to have made no allowance for the likelihood that Evans would reach the ball first. In the circumstances, he should have done so.

Much emphasis was placed on the fact that the last of the four times that the ball bounced, it did so in a more upright manner, and that brought the ball closer to Evans than to May and that May could not have foreseen this.

May said that the ground was wet and that therefore the ball tended to skid through.

He acknowledged, however, that even in the wet, it is possible the ball will bounce up.

Here the vision shows that the second last bounce also bounces in an upright manner, so May could and should have observed that the next bounce may well also sit up.

May could and should have realised before the last bounce that he remained unlikely to get to the ball first. By the second last bounce he could, and should have realised that Evans would reach the ball first and likely take possession of the ball.

Both players had a clear and unimpeded view of the ball and of each other. As he gathered the ball, Evans had time to position his body just slightly so as to turn slightly away from May.

This gives some indication that May had sufficient time to make some attempt to move his body in a way that minimised or avoided the impact to Evans.

May had his arms out to gather the ball, he had sufficient time to retract them noticeably, indicating that he had some reaction time.

May made no attempt to change his path, his body position or his velocity at any time leading up to or in the contest.

As a result, the effect was that he ran through Evans at high speed. A reasonable player would not have done so.

May did not have a lot of time to do so, but he had sufficient time to avoid or minimise a high speed collision with a player who was gathering the ball.

The collision involving Alex Pearce was used by way of comparison. In that matter, the players arrived at the contest almost simultaneously, and yet Pearce had time to drop his arm in an attempt to minimise contact.

Evidence from the biomechanist states that may had only 0.56 seconds from the time that the ball landed for its final bounce until the moment of the collision, and that he would have needed at least 0.2 to 0.25 seconds to react, noting that this is the reaction time in controlled laboratory environments.

We find, however, that May could and should have reacted before the moment of the last bounce of the ball. Even if, contrary to our view, May could and should not have reacted until the final bounce of the ball, we find that he had sufficient time to position his body so that he was no longer attempting to gather the ball.

It's important to note in this regard that May had a relatively long period of time to sum up the key features of the contest.

This was not a situation where May had a split second in which to assess what might happen in the contest and to consider what he might do if the ball did not bounce in an entirely favourable way for him.

May ran a sufficient distance and had sufficient time with an unimpeded view of what was before him to determine what he could and should do in the likely event that he did not reach the ball either first or at the same time.

We find that May engaged in rough conduct that was unreasonable in the circumstances.

As we said in the Pearce matter, an outcome of concussion does not inevitably result in a finding of at least careless conduct.

Every incident must be and is examined and determined on its own facts.

Here, the collision resulted in a concussion to a player, and that collision was caused or contributed to by a failure by May to take reasonable care.

A reasonable player in today's game would not have collided with Evans in the manner that occurred here.